Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-07 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Present: Jeff Johnson, Vice Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Ken Harycki, Brent Peterson and Roger Tomten Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Howard Lieberman, Larry Nelson and Scott Zahren Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten said the language in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the material related to Case No. DR/06-27 was confusing. He suggested that the wording to changed to indicate that pedestrian traffic will not be affected as the “adjacent wall to the south extends out an additional 2’.” There also was discussion as to the type of lighting recommended for Case No. DR/06-30. Rather than channel lit lettering, as indicated in the minutes, it was directed that the minutes reflect the Commission recommended “channel lit lettering that will provide a halo effect.” Also, it was noted the vote on Case No. DEM/06-04 was unanimous, but not 6-0 was indicated. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of July 5, 2006, as corrected; motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/06-05. Mr. Johnson opened the hearing and announced that this case had been withdrawn. The hearing was closed. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/06-26 Design review of a proposed expansion of Valley Ridge Shopping Center at 1250 Frontage Road West. Representing the applicant were Jesse Hamer of Tushie Montgomery Architects and Kriss Novak of Valley Ridge management. Mr. Johnson referred to the changes that had been made subsequent to the discussion at the July meeting, specifically that the proposed expansion has been reduced and now meets required setback from Northwestern Avenue and the design provides for a continuous band and roof parapet over a proposed drive-thru space. It was noted that the purpose of the drive-thru is tenant-driven. Mr. Tomten asked about the materials transition at the corners and whether the materials would wrap around the north and west elevations and the drive-thru elevation. Mr. Tomten also questioned the height of the parapet. Mr. Pogge noted that there is a condition of approval related to the parapet. There was a question about the trash enclosure. The applicant stated the enclosure would be a gated, structure with masonry on both sides. There was a question about the location of mechanicals. It was noted that the mechanical units had not been selected at the time of the meeting, but the units would be placed on the roof and screened if necessary. It was noted that the units would be smaller units to serve each wing/bay. Mr. Johnson also pointed out the mechanicals would not be visible from many viewing points. Regarding the required lighting City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 2 of 5 plan, the applicant provided two cut sheets and site lighting plan at the meeting. Regarding the required landscape plan, Mr. Johnson pointed out the applicant will be submitting that and currently is working with Washington County Soil and Water Conservation to incorporate a rain garden as part of the landscape plan. Mr. Tomten asked about the proposed fabric canopies and whether signage was proposed for the canopies, noting that a tenant is limited to one sign. Mr. Hamer explained a sign package for the mall was submitted in 2003 but never formally adopted. He said the signage package would be going to the Planning Commission for a requested variance and will be coming back to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Tomten moved approval as conditioned, with conditions No. 3, 4, 6 and 7 to be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit, eliminating the language that these items be brought back for review and approval by the HPC, with an additional condition, No. 11, that the materials at the corner of the north elevation wrap around the east and west elevations. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson asked that the applicant’s handouts submitted at the Aug. 7 meeting be included as part of the official record. Mr. Tomten and Mr. Eastwood were agreeable to Mr. Johnson’s suggestion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-30 Design review of proposed signage for Stone’s Restaurant at 324 S. Main St. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the revised request and design of the proposed signage. Mr. Pogge noted that in addition to the requested sign on Main Street and the already approved signage on Second Street, the applicant now is requesting a projecting sign and canopy sign on Nelson Street. Mr. Johnson said he was unaware that signage was permitted on multiple sides of a canopy, noting the request amounts to three signs. Mr. Johnson also suggested that the requested projecting sign on Nelson Street would be prone to damage and could be a hazard due to the narrowness of the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson suggested that the request regarding canopy signage be limited to either the front or two sides of the awning, not all three elevations. Mr. Harycki relayed Mr. Nelson’s thoughts regarding the proposal. Mr. Nelson urged the Commission to consider how the City treats businesses located off Main Street. Mr. Nelson indicated he thought the request was a good package and reiterated the difficulty presented by the location. There was discussion about the proposed lighting of the Main Street sign. It was clarified that there is no translucent lighting, all lighting is halo effect lighting and LED lighting. Mr. Tomten asked if the LED lights would be visible; it was noted that a condition of approval could be added that LED lights not be visible. During discussion, Mr. Eastwood suggested that the applicant had done what the Commission requested regarding the use of halo lighting. Mr. Tomten said while not “excited” about the proposed shape and style of the sign, he agreed that the applicant had attempted to utilize lighting that is compatible with what the City is trying to do in the downtown area. Mr. Johnson also noted that the applicant had eliminated the starburst portion of the sign, as requested by the Commission. Mr. Tomten suggested that if the Main Street signage is the focus, the applicant be limited to using the Stone’s panel only on the 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 3 of 5 projecting signage on Nelson Street, eliminating the “Restaurant & Lounge” and “Cocktails, Seafood, Chops” panels. Mr. Johnson moved approval as conditioned, adding language to Condition No. 5 (canopy sign for Nelson Street) allowing verbiage on either the south face or each end of the canopy, limiting the verbiage to 6 square feet per end, and adding language to Condition No. 9 that if a variance is granted, the projecting sign is limited to the upper panel (Stone’s) only, eliminating the two other panels due to concerns about overhead clearance. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-31 Design review of proposed signage for UBS at 270 N. Main St. Leroy Signs, applicant. The applicant was not present. It was noted that the request is to replace two existing Piper Jaffray signs with new UBS signs. Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-32 Design review of proposed signage for Ultima Belleza Salon at 150 Third St. S. Mary Coleman, applicant. Ms. Coleman was present. The requested sign will be black background with gold letters. The sign will not be lighted and meets the allowable square footage. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-33 Design review of an accessory dwelling unit at 519 Third St. S. Walter Wdowychyn, applicant. The applicant was present. He explained that his two lots have been incorporated into one parcel. The proposed structure will be located on the northeast corner of the parcel; the front faces west and access is off Third Street, it was noted. He said he would be OK with adding an additional dormer as suggested in the staff report. Mr. Johnson asked around lighting. Mr. Wdowychyn said lighting would be limited to two carriage-style fixtures located on both sides of the doorways. Mr. Johnson suggested that rather than carriage-style lighting, the applicant consider gooseneck fixtures and place the fixtures under the eaves so as to not spray lighting onto neighboring properties. Mr. Johnson asked about the style of windows. The applicant said windows would likely be casement style; Mr. Johnson suggested that sash windows might be more fitting. The applicant said he was comfortable with that suggestion. Mr. Eastwood moved approval as conditioned, with the applicant to consider the additional dormer, sash windows and downlit fixtures, rather than carriage fixtures. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson asked that the additional dormer be a requirement of approval; the applicant said he was OK with making that a requirement. Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Peterson 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 4 of 5 agreed to amend the motion to require the additional dormer as a condition of approval. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-34 Design review of signage for Grumpy Steve’s at 410 Main St. S., LLC applicant. Steve Bremer was present representing Grumpy Steve’s. He explained that the coffee shop struggles to compete with Starbucks. He said since installing a banner advertising the offering of Belgian waffles, gross sales have more than doubled, prompting the request for the additional sign. During discussion, it was noted that the existing Grumpy Steve’s sign is a bit shy of the allowable square footage. Mr. Eastwood suggested placing the verbiage advertising the Belgian waffles underneath the existing sign, utilizing a different font perhaps, to get close to the allowable square footage, rather than uses two separate signs. It also was suggested that the canopy could be utilized for a graphic that would promote the waffles. Mr. Johnson also noted that technically the business has two frontages, so a projecting sign on the Broadway elevation would be allowable. Mr. Johnson noted that the Commission could approve the modification of the existing sign up to the allowable 27 square feet or approve a projecting sign of up to 6 square feet on the Broadway Street elevation or deny the second sign unless a variance is approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bremer said he would like to continue the request and revise plans. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to continue Case No. CR/06-34. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-36 Design review of signage for St. Croix Preparatory Academy at 201 N. Second St. St. Croix Preparatory Academy, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted the proposed signage mimics that of the existing signage at the Myrtle Street facility. Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Heirloom Houses Program – There was discussion of Mr. Turnblad’s proposal to implement an Heirloom Houses Program as recommended by Mr. Empson in his report to the Commission. Mr. Eastwood expressed a concern that funding for implementing this new program not interfere with funding to finish up the neighborhood studies. Mr. Turnblad noted that would be up to the Commission to determine its funding priorities; Mr. Johnson said he thought the Heirloom Home Program should be a priority. Mr. Eastwood suggested that the Landmark Homes should automatically be added to the list of the 370 properties Mr. Empson has identified as Heirloom Houses. It was the consensus that Mr. Turnblad’s proposal was a good approach to implementing the program. It was suggested that Mr. Turnblad contact SHPO regarding possible grants. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Demolition Permit – Mr. Turnblad noted that the Demolition Permit application packet, discussed at the last HPC meeting, had been revised to include a bid from a residential/commercial restoration contractor as part of the reason and supporting data for a proposed demolition. He also noted that he had retained item J – recommendation that the applicant retain one of the contract historians to complete a report on the age and cultural/historical significance of the property -–as part of the application packet. Mr. Turnblad noted that the packet has been used and distributed to potential applicants. There was a brief discussion of “demolition by neglect.” Mr. Turnblad noted that the City currently has no housing code that would provide a mechanism for dealing with such situations; Mr. Harycki suggested that might be something the HPC should look at. ? It was noted that Mr. Tomten would be attending the annual HPC conference. ? Mr. Johnson asked about the signage regarding the City’s selection for the Preserve America program. It was noted that signage has been installed on Main Street. ? Mr. Johnson asked about the issues related to the Water Street Inn. Mr. Pogge said he is trying to set up a meeting with the Inn owner. ? Mr. Turnblad noted that a property across from Schulenberg Park is listed as a “tear down.” He told the Commission a letter had been sent to the listing realtor. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5